why sporterize?

[Cosmoline]

There are sporters done right and there are the other ones.

Actual, real, highly skilled smiths had been "sporterizing" military surplus rifles since the 19th century. Their work ranges from solid to stunningly beautiful. I've seen Commission Mausers so ornately engraved they would have been proud in an art gallery. With absolutely perfect balance, too.

This tradition continued into the 20th century. There were few makers of commercial non-military bolt actions back then, and a high demand. I've seen reasonably good quality sporters dating to about the 60's and 70's. After that, not so much.

CONTRASTING with this tradition there have been a plethora of garage gunsmiths (aka Bubba) who read an article about "modernizing that old rifle" in the magazine and decided to do it themselves. Sometimes this made sense, esp. back when surplus rifles from WWII were knee-deep on the ground and cost almost nothing but a new Winchester was a month's pay. But the days when any of this made economic sense are long gone. You can buy an inexpensive and dead accurate Savage, ready for a scope, for a few hundred dollars. In contrast, the collector's market for a lot of surplus arms has really taken off. So you could not only be wasting money on the sporterization, you may be destroying a rifle worth many times what you paid for it. I've seen a lot of garage tragedies over the years, so the danger isn't just theoretical. A Greek Mannlicher-Schoenauer with an unusal proof and very short SN hacked so badly virtually nothing was left untouched. A Mosin M27 cut and hammered into an abomination and rendered worthless. A Polish M44 with what had been a lovely blond stock turned into something I'd rather not talk about. All of these guys and many, many more lost a lot of money from their hackery. I can only guess as to the Greek rifle.

The bottom line is I *LIKE* rifles. I don't like seeing them hacked up for no good reason. If you want to do it yourself, build your own rifle from scratch. It's a ton of fun and if the results are iffy the first few times, you've hurt nothing.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

I'd say that sums it up pretty good,Cosmoline. I build my sporters on receivers and barrelled receivers,not complete rifles so I bear no guilty feelings.

 

[B yond]

Oh puh-lease.

If you want a project gun go get a project gun. If you want a collectible go get a collectible.

No one needs to feel bad for sporterizing their milsurp unless they're not happy with the way it came out.

If it was worth more in original condition, fine. The owner has to decide whether it's worth more to them as an original or as a sporter.

My m44 was worth $90. If I hadn't sporterized it it would still be worth $90. I'd also probably never shoot it (have other iron-sighted bolt action milsurps that are more fun to shoot).

It's worth more TO ME as a sporter.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

There IS NO reason - now. The economics don't support it. The economics are drastically different then they were in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and even 70s.

That's when they were done (mostly).

 

[jimmyraythomason]

I built 2 Mauser 98 sporters this past year. Neither was built for economic reasons. Both were built from parts collected for that purpose and the total costs have NOT been tallied. It just doesn't matter.

 

[Cosmoline]

On top of value issues, there's the problem with a narrow mind. Most of the Bubba projects involve beating and hacking a "foreign" looking rifle into something approximating the standard American hunting rifle. No iron sights, no stripper clip guide, no bayonet, reliance on receiver-mounted scope, bent bolt handle etc etc. Why not learn to shoot it as it was intended to be shot, instead of bashing it into your preconceived notions of what a "good hunting rifle" has to be?

 

[mcdonl]

On top of value issues, there's the problem with a narrow mind. Most of the Bubba projects involve beating and hacking a "foreign" looking rifle into something approximating the standard American hunting rifle. No iron sights, no stripper clip guide, no bayonet, reliance on receiver-mounted scope, bent bolt handle etc etc. Why not learn to shoot it as it was intended to be shot, instead of bashing it into your preconceived notions of what a "good hunting rifle" has to be?

Mr Cosmoline... that is why I reversed ONE of my millsurps... as shown above. I have others that I enjoy sportsterizing, but I think some guns are better off "natural"....

And... one more thing...

STAY THE HE11 OUT OF MY GAS TUBES!!

 

[B yond]

There IS NO reason - now. The economics don't support it.

No reason? Seriously? What about "because it's fun" or "because I wanted to" or "because I wanted to make it exactly what I wanted" and all the other similar reasons?

Heck, Bill Ruger said there was NO REASON any responsible gun owner needed more than 10 rounds in a magazine. Most of us would disagree with that.

You may not see a reason, but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't see one.

On top of value issues, there's the problem with a narrow mind. Most of the Bubba projects involve beating and hacking a "foreign" looking rifle into something approximating the standard American hunting rifle. No iron sights, no stripper clip guide, no bayonet, reliance on receiver-mounted scope, bent bolt handle etc etc. Why not learn to shoot it as it was intended to be shot, instead of bashing it into your preconceived notions of what a "good hunting rifle" has to be?

Narrow mind? Reading that made me throw up a little in my mouth.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

How is it narrow-minded to see an old beat up milsurp and think of all the great things it could be?

No, narrow-minded is thinking that these old weapons should *only* be enjoyed the way they were originally configured.

 

[Cosmoline]

How is it narrow-minded to see an old beat up milsurp and think of all the great things it could be?

I don't have as big an issue with those who do unusual or creative things with surplus rifles. But most of what gets churned out of the garage shops are attempts to make a rifle unfamiliar to the owner more familiar. The straight bolt is replaced with a bent bolt, the barrel is shortened, the stock is shortened, the hand guard tossed, the receiver is drilled and tapped for a scope, etc. There's no imagination there. Just destruction. It's a violent attack on history for no good reason. The subtext is clear--the old military rifles are "junk" not worth saving unless they can be made to resemble a Remchester. I object strongly to that whole philosophy.

Throwing Bill Ruger's quote at me is absurd. Nowhere have I suggested that sporterizing should be illegal. But if you do it you I don't have to like it.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Sorry but change doesn't equal destruction in all cases.

 

[Cosmoline]

I never said it did. Did you read my post?

 

[ArmedBear]

The straight bolt is replaced with a bent bolt, the barrel is shortened, the stock is shortened, the hand guard tossed, the receiver is drilled and tapped for a scope, etc.

Uh, yeah. These are all the changes required to turn an old military rifle into a useful modern hunting rifle. The execution might be poor, but the highest-end Mauser-based custom has exactly the same general specs.

It's not worth it to hack up an old rifle now, but when most of this stuff was done, it was when the surplus rifles in question were very cheap and more than plentiful. And Bubba didn't do a good job. But what "imagination" do you expect? A scope mounted perpendicular to the bore? A pink paisley finish on the barrel? Three extra bayonet lugs?

Would it make sense to hack up a '32 Ford Coupe in good original condition today? No. But in the late 1950s and early 1960s, they were junkyard cars, and turning them into dragsters was just good fun.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Yes I did and yes you did. "The straight bolt is replaced with a bent bolt, the barrel is shortened, the stock is shortened, the hand guard tossed, the receiver is drilled and tapped for a scope, etc. There's no imagination there. Just destruction. It's a violent attack on history for no good reason."

 

[B yond]

The subtext is clear--the old military rifles are "junk" not worth saving unless they can be made to resemble a Remchester.

Oddly enough, you're the only person I've heard that from.

These old military rifles served their purpose very well. They were made for fighting wars. I don't see any problem with modifying one to serve another purpose.

If you're not a collector, and you have a milsurp with little or no collector value, and you want to make a sporter...why not?

I'm more likely to go hunting with my m44 than I am to fight WWII with it. It does me no good just sitting in the safe looking old.

 

[Maj Dad]

Don't Worry, Be Happy

In 1968 I bought a nice VZ-24 action at New Orleans Arms Co. for $20. Then I ordered a 308 bbl from E.R. Shaw for $25-$30 or so, sent it to Ernest Hurt in Muscogee, OK, who installed & headspaced it, forged & turned down the bolt & jeweled it for around $25-$30 (package deal ), added a Sile walnut stock I found in some shop in New Orleans for $15 and Voila! Sporter! I installed Williams front & rear sites (3 holes at $2 a hole), and later on drilled & tapped & scoped it. Staff Sergeant Jacoby, USA, had to sell it at Ft Bragg after the second child showed up, but no regrets. Had a million bucks worth of fun with it, and I'm on the verge of doing it again with a 308 Yugo M24 that was rebarrelled with a re-cut and chambered 03-A3 bbl back in the 60's, also replete with Williams front & rear sights (3 holes!!). Beats watching the boob tube and it's worth $6 million in therapy.

I also have a lot of pristine milsurp weapons which will remain thus. I am a shooter first, collector second, and museum owner/operator not in the least...

 

[B yond]

I am a shooter first, collector second, and museum owner/operator not in the least...

Quote of the day!

Well put, sir.

 

[earlthegoat2]

I'm more likely to go hunting with my m44 than I am to fight WWII with it.

Here is my vote for

Quote of the day!

 

[Cosmoline]

These are all the changes required to turn an old military rifle into a useful modern hunting rifle.

ORLY? Lots of people hunt with intact surplus rifles. There is no need to hack them up to make them "useful." Absolutely none.

These old military rifles served their purpose very well. They were made for fighting wars. I don't see any problem with modifying one to serve another purpose.

This is the subtext I was talking about--the very one you claim to have never heard. The subtext is that these are "war rifles" for fighting wars, and if you want to use them for hunting you have to make them look like a modern scoped hunting rifle. It's a load of bravo sierra. You'll have better luck leaving your Mosin intact as a hunting rifle. It's stronger and the tangent sight, used properly, will give you whatever zero you need.

What we're really talking about here is DEMILITARIZING a rifle to make it "suitable" for civilian use. All other arguments aside, I really do not like that idea. Not one bit. It stinks to high heaven in fact.

 

[Cosmoline]

Yes I did and yes you did

Read Post No. 26.

 

[Clipper]

I just LOVE the way Cosmo goes berserk about this subject... He's so narrow-minded about it I bet his scratch pads are an inch wide.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

I agreed with post #26. Post #34 was what I was responding to.

 

[Cosmoline]

This isn't berserk. You should see me when I go berserk.

 

[REAPER4206969]

"Sporterizing " threads make me cry.

 

[AirplaneDoc]

Back in the day, my grandfather picked up 4 1903 springfields at the rock island arsenal. He hand selected them, and sporterized 2 of them. I have 1 uncut, and 1 sporterized of the original 4. He paid $25 each at the time.

 

[ArmedBear]

You'll have better luck leaving your Mosin intact as a hunting rifle.

Well, yeah. And I think that someone has to be heavily intoxicated to use one at all.

An open iron sight might let you hit a 55-gallon drum at 600 yards, but it won't work any better for making an ethical shot on deer at 600 yards now than it did 100 years ago.

I've never "bubba'd" a rifle. But when some people look at a rifle with a cracked stock, a shot-out barrel with a dark bore, and a decent Mauser action, they think, "Oh neat! A Mauser action!" There's nothing wrong with that. Of course, a junk sporter is a junk sporter, regardless.

Of course, nobody with a BAL below .2% ever looked at a MOSIN with a cracked stock, a shot-out barrel with a dark bore, and thought, "Wow! I can use that action to make a fine custom hunting rifle!"

WRT "demilitarizing" a rifle, that's no different from stripping off all the unnecessary stuff from a Harley back in the day, to make a much sportier bike. That was about the same time that people were bubba'ing cheap surplus rifles, and chopping up junked '32 Fords, too.

The real "demilitarizing" happened automatically, when guns like the Mosin and even the Mauser became irrelevant to military use.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate historic firearms, and I don't want to trash a good one. However, if I get a Swedish Mauser barreled action in 6.5x55, I wouldn't have any qualms about putting it in a stock that I like, drilling and tapping it, etc. It's no longer a pristine military relic -- which I have a few of, BTW, and wouldn't modify. I also wouldn't take them hunting as-is. We don't get a grocery bag full of tags like you do in Alaska, so I will take any edge I can, including a rifle best suited to hunting instead of bayonet charges.